Aim: The aim of the study was to evaluate the shear bond strength of adhesive and self-adhesive resin luting agents (RLAs) to three commercially available composite core build-up materials (CBMs). Settings and Design: Comparative - invitro study. Materials and Methods: Sixty samples, 20 each of self-cure (Incore, Medicept: Group I), light cure (Light-Core, Bisco: Group II), and dual cure (LuxaCore Z-Dual, DMG America: Group III) composite CBMs were made in the lower mold space of a customized stainless steel jig. They were further subdivided into subgroups A and B for bonding with the adhesive (RelyX Ultimate, 3M ESPE) and self-adhesive (RelyX Unicem, 3M ESPE) RLAs respectively. For specimens in subgroup A, the bonding agent (Scotchbond Universal Adhesive, 3M ESPE) was rubbed onto the surface for 20 s prior to bonding with the adhesive RLA. For specimens in subgroup B, no pretreatment of the surface was carried out. The CBM-luting agent sample was tested for the shear bond strength in a universal testing machine. Statistical Analysis Used: ANOVA, Tukey's multiple comparison, and independent t -test. Results: Adhesive RLA showed the highest shear bond strength to light cured composite CBM. Self-adhesive RLA showed the highest shear bond strength to dual-cured composite CBM. Adhesive RLA showed higher shear bond strength to all three composite CBMs as compared to the self-adhesive luting agent. This difference was statistically significant for the self-cure and light cure composite CBMs. Conclusion: Adhesive RLA showed greater shear bond strengths to all the three groups of composite CBMs as compared to self-adhesive RLA.
Aim: The aim of the survey was to evaluate the current trends in the use of different post and core buildup materials and luting agents. Materials and methods: The survey questionnaire, aimed toward evaluating the current trends in the use of different post and core buildup materials and luting agents, consisted of 15 questions. This questionnaire was validated by a panel of senior prosthodontists and sent to 600 dental practitioners in Mumbai and Navi Mumbai in a printed format. Results and conclusion: The results of the survey showed that post and core procedures are routinely performed by dental practitioners. Majority of the practitioners did not use a post for all endodontically treated teeth. A prefabricated metal post and composite core was preferred by practitioners in teeth with loss of more than two-thirds of the tooth structure. Most practitioners preferred a glass fiber post with composite core buildup under a lithium disilicate crown. A glass ionomer-based restorative core was preferred in the posterior region. Majority of the practitioners used glass ionomer cement (GIC) for luting of ceramo-metal crowns. Resin cement was the cement of choice for luting of lithium disilicate crowns. Failure of teeth restored with a post and core was rarely encountered by most practitioners and the most common cause of failure was due to fracture of the tooth.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.